In the fourth century BCE, the Greek philosopher Aristotle published the Organon, a collection of works on logical analysis. In it, the essay Sophistical Refutations outlines 13 fallacies that render an argument invalid. Aristotle separated these fallacies into two categories: verbal, or those that involve imprecise or improper language, and material, or those founded on faulty reasoning.There are six verbal fallacies that Aristotle identifies. The first is equivocation, a type of ambiguity that can occur when a word or phrase is used in multiple ways. An equivocal argument might look something like this:All trees have bark. Every dog barks. Therefore, a dog is a tree.In the first sentence, “bark” means the tough exterior of a tree. In the second, it’s the sound that a dog makes. Of course, we all know that a dog isn’t really a tree. But here, it’s because the word that associates them, “bark,” is being used in two separate contexts.Two other verbal fallacies that Aristotle names, composition and division, are the inverse of each other. Composition occurs when one argues that because something is true of certain members of a group, it must be true of the collective. Division, on the other hand, means arguing that if something is true of a group, it must be true of each individual member.Of the remaining verbal fallacies, only two are relevant to us today: amphibology, which refers to ambiguous sentence structure; and accent, or emphasis placed on certain words to elicit different meanings. Figure of speech, the final fallacy, is specific to Greek and Latin language as they were used in Aristotle’s lifetime.Which of the following is an example of composition? aThis potato is rotten, so the others in the bag must also be rotten. bMy dog likes to be petted, so a wolf would like it, too. cDark chocolate is healthy, and this cake contains dark chocolate, so it must be healthy. dPeople from Spain speak Spanish. You’re from Spain, so you speak Spanish.

In Sophistical Refutations, Aristotle also identifies seven material fallacies, or those rooted in flawed logic. Sometimes they’re referred to as fallacies of presumption, as they often presume an incorrect conclusion or avoid the issue at hand altogether.The fallacy of accident is committed when a general rule is applied to an exceptional circumstance. It might look something like this: “You shouldn’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, so it was wrong for you to do so when you smelled smoke.”Secundum quid et simpliciter works similarly. It involves using an exceptional scenario to argue that a rule should be rejected outright. Promoting the abolition of traffic laws because ambulances sometimes run red lights is an example of secundum quid.Affirming the consequent means taking a true statement and saying its converse is also true. For example, if you’re in Paris, you must also be in France. But reversing these clauses makes the statement incorrect, because if you’re in France, you could be somewhere other than Paris.The next couple of fallacies are more straightforward. The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion is exactly what it sounds like: a conclusion that fails to address the topic of the argument. The false cause fallacy is an argument that erroneously assumes one event led to another. And the many questions fallacy involves asking questions that presume information that may not be true.Finally, we have begging the question. Also known as a circular argument, this fallacy relies on an argument’s conclusion to support its premise. Oftentimes, the premise appears to simply repeat the conclusion in different words. Saying that video games are fun because they’re enjoyable is begging the question because it doesn’t actually explain why video games are enjoyable.Which of the following is an example of begging the question? aThe book is a bestseller because it sold the most copies. bIf you don’t eat meat at this meal, you’re a vegetarian. cThis medication helps cancer patients, so it would help all people. dEvery time I wash my car, it rains the next da

Read the following information to answer questions 7 to 9A valid argument is an argument where all the premises logically lead to the conclusion. A validargument does not have to be true, it just has to logically lead to the conclusion. A sound argument isboth valid and observably true. A cogent argument is where the premises almost certainly lead to theconclusion, but more information is needed. A fallacious argument is one where the premises cannotlead to the conclusion.Assuming that all the premises are observably true, what category do the following arguments fit into?Question 7Premise 1: Jill is a store employeePremise 2: All store employees have to wear a uniformConclusion: Jill has to wear a uniformA. ValidB. SoundC. CogentD. FallaciousE. Impossible to tellYear 8 Simulation Test – Verbal Reasoning © JAC COM Victoria Page3Question 8Premise 1: Jill makes a lot of sales: she is very good at retail.Premise 2: Jill is a Mac.Rob girl.Conclusion: Therefore, all Mac.Rob girls make a lot of sales and are very good at retail.A. ValidB. SoundC. CogentD. FallaciousE. Impossible to tellQuestion 9Premise 1: Jill is a retail workerPremise 2: No retail workers earn their living selling coffeeConclusion: Therefore, Jill does not make her living selling coffeeA. ValidB. SoundC. CogentD. FallaciousE. Impossible to tel

2. An effective argument should beQuestion 8Answera.illogical and argumentativeb.Self-assessed and self-reflectedc.Critically evaluatedd.well-grounded and supported by data

The four essential features of academic arguments are:(select four correct answers)Nhóm lựa chọn câu trả lờiControversyBackgroundClaimAngerSupportReasoning

Presence of one or more logical fallacies.*1 pointACCURATENOT ACCURAT